Live data from Hacker News

How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

shkrobius.livejournal.com

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#81
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick addition to the awesomeness of sperm whales: part of the reason they dive so deep/long is to hunt giant squid. While a sperm whale vs. giant squid battle has never been observed, there are multiple counts of sperm whales with scars that are from squids and in some cases almost certainly from giant squid.

Add to the list the story where a large sperm whale managed to sink a whaleship that was attacking multiple of its kin [1] (story which later inspired Moby-Dick). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_(whaleship)#Whale_attack

The book "In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex" by Nathaniel Philbrick is great, BTW.

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#82
post #59
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poachers are similarly mind boggling. Instead of leaving a viable population to harvest more animal parts ... they hunt down every last animal then move on to other animals. Poaching makes sense to the poacher. Take a guy I might or might not be related to. When he was growing up his family was dirt-poor and rural. Taking game out of season meant the difference between eating and starvation. Hard on the deer, if you…

yeah, two guys all of us might or may not be related to... one have domesticated deer, offered good conditions for it to breed (protected it from other predators including hunters like himself) and then he and his children prospered off their cattle... the other one just hunted his food to extinction... guess who's children have survived to tell the story?

Yeah those poor guys with thousands of acres of land with fences, barns and hundreds of pounds of feed for the winter. To bad they aren't smart enough to heard animals.

Owning a ranch typically isn't a poor man's occupation. It requires investments in land, improvements to the land, food for the animals when the land is unable to support them, etc.

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#83
Nixon's bold stance(?!) predates P.S. Lang's invention of a synthetic replacement by a number of years.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3731

Of course, he could never use the term "sperm whale". But this is what led to the Endangered Species Act that granted the whales a reprieve. Lang's invention was only a reaction to this. It's still a good read.

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When prey is overhunted, some of the predator population dies out (negative feedback, if you will) ... please don't make it sound unnatural. I think it's OK to characterize human interaction with the ecosystem as unnatural. Feedback loops like the one you mention work OK for cheetahs and gazelles. Too many cheetahs leads to too few gazelles leads to skinny cheetahs and eventually to fewer cheetahs, etc. But that happ…

> Americans all learned to drive stick. Impact on human population of the planet: none. Impact on the rapaciousness of future generations: questionable. Feedback loops (as opposed to straight-line cause and effect) closed or otherwise in evidence at all: zero. Either less drivers on the road or more accidents ( i did drive stick back in the Russia and it is very different driving, esp. when all around you is also dri…

Either less drivers on the road or more accidents ... looks like a very powerful feedback loop for me.

I think you wildly overstate the impact of a whale-oil shortage on traffic. Regardless, unless the horrible maiming of a few thousand distracted drivers would somehow save the whales, we're not talking about a loop.

Huh? who was driving automatic transmission cars?

Humans were, of course, but demand for whale oil was a function of the number of automatic transmission cars on the road, not a function of the human population count. And the places with the strongest population growth at the time (China and India, I would guess) weren't the places buying up all the fancy new auto-transmission cars.

If there were a strong relationship between the population and the demand for this commodity, then demand would have risen relatively smoothly with the population, rather than exploding with the rise of the American suburb.

We'll see how we escape global warming.

I don't know what will happen, but I'm confident quite a few animal species are going to be a lot more screwed than humanity as a whole will be. As long as there's a way to keep humans comfortable by strangling the ecosystem, some of us will do so.

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#85
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could even argue that it's already happened. Modern breeds of food animals are more or less "synthetic meats." They're much more efficient at converting feed into flesh than any natural animal is, and they'd have no chance of surviving in the wild.

I sure hope that's not what OP meant...

I'm sure it's not.

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't a rhetorical question. Or rather, it remains a valid rhetorical question until it receives a satisfactory answer. Until that point, all supposed flaws with capitalism are really flaws with all industrial civilizations observed thus far. Tangentially, no real world economic system is "designed". They evolve out of competing interests. Even if you did design a system and implement it perfectly, it would have…

Even if you did design a system and implement it perfectly, it would have unintended consequences. Sure, but what prevents you from then measuring these unintended consequences, plugging them back into your model and asking the question "how should my system change?". Is there any reason to believe we can never reach a stable fixed point? We do things sort of like this in microprocessor design for instance - where we…

So who are the designers, and how are they going to do any of this in isolation? Previous attempts have resulted in bloodbaths because the only way anyone can design a society is with large amounts of force. And then the state of the society is better characterized by the bloodbath than by whatever design the bloodbath was intended to create or enforce.

Unintended consequences aren't the only reason you can't design society. The main reason is that society insists on designing itself. It's obvious with a processor who is the designer and what is the designed. Societies are full of people who don't agree with other people's "designs" and won't voluntarily cooperate. So either you give up, or you spend most of your time designing cost-effective means of imposing your designs by force, which always turns into some combination of mass imprisonment, mass murder, and repression.

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you did design a system and implement it perfectly, it would have unintended consequences. Sure, but what prevents you from then measuring these unintended consequences, plugging them back into your model and asking the question "how should my system change?". Is there any reason to believe we can never reach a stable fixed point? We do things sort of like this in microprocessor design for instance - where we…

So who are the designers, and how are they going to do any of this in isolation? Previous attempts have resulted in bloodbaths because the only way anyone can design a society is with large amounts of force. And then the state of the society is better characterized by the bloodbath than by whatever design the bloodbath was intended to create or enforce. Unintended consequences aren't the only reason you can't design…

So who are the designers, and how are they going to do any of this in isolation? Previous attempts have resulted in bloodbaths because the only way anyone can design a society is with large amounts of force. And then the state of the society is better characterized by the bloodbath than by whatever design the bloodbath was intended to create or enforce.

I don't buy the argument that this has to be done by force, or that this necessarily results in a bloodbath. What are governments trying to do when they tweak laws, interests rates and the like but trying to "design" societies?

I'm just suggesting that we take more quantitative and model-based approach to this issue. We can start by simply involving more scientists and engineers in policy decisions, and ask them to use the tools we've developed to analyze complex systems to analyze the socio-economic system that we live in.

To a certain extent, we're already doing this. A hundred years ago, most political decisions were ad hoc based on what "seemed right" to the party in charge. Decisions today are much more data-based and rely on expert input.

Unintended consequences aren't the only reason you can't design society. The main reason is that society insists on designing itself. ...

These are dogmatic statements unsupported by citations. I'm not sure how to respond to them.

Societies are full of people who don't agree with other people's "designs" and won't voluntarily cooperate.

It would have inconceivable five hundred years that "most" people would agree on the following:

(1) large parts of the world would elect their own rulers. (2) women would have the same rights and privileges as men. (3) violence as a means of solving problems would be perceived as "wrong".

This perception changed because we see now that these were decisions that benefited society as a whole.

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#88
Whale-oil related trivia: A huge number of recordings have been lost due to the whale oil ban. Magnetic audio tape was made using whale oil as a binder, to help adhere the magnetisable oxide particles to the tape. The first non-whale binders turned out to have very poor long-term durability, causing the oxide to fall off in clumps. Most archivists 'bake' these tapes at low temperatures, to improve the oxide adhesion for just long enough to make a copy.

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So who are the designers, and how are they going to do any of this in isolation? Previous attempts have resulted in bloodbaths because the only way anyone can design a society is with large amounts of force. And then the state of the society is better characterized by the bloodbath than by whatever design the bloodbath was intended to create or enforce. Unintended consequences aren't the only reason you can't design…

So who are the designers, and how are they going to do any of this in isolation? Previous attempts have resulted in bloodbaths because the only way anyone can design a society is with large amounts of force. And then the state of the society is better characterized by the bloodbath than by whatever design the bloodbath was intended to create or enforce. I don't buy the argument that this has to be done by force, or t…

Fundamentally, design is the wrong analogy. In design, there is a designer, and then there is something being designed. In society, the "designer" is already part of society, and he doesn't have the same degree of control an actual designer has.

Let's suppose you assemble everyone together to agree on and implement a design. The design process literally turns into a political process: a competitive effort to benefit fundamentally unreconcilable private interests and opinions rather than a collaborative effort to come up with an objectively good system. Stable, democratic governments aren't designers: they're a manifestation of the powers that be in the society already.

What form of government is a designer? The closest match seems to be some sort of brute-force colonialism--when foreigners try to redesign a society that they, themselves, are not a part of. The next-closest analogy to design is absolute dictatorship. Once you get into stable systems of government, even one-party states like China, or mature colonial states, but especially democracies, the political and economic system governing society is the result of a competitive game between different players, not the result of anyone implementing a design. Framing social problems in design terms is fundamentally wrong--well-functioning societies do not work that way and societies that are designed turn into bloodbaths until reverting to a form of society that's not designed.

I'm not unsympathetic to your viewpoint. I like to design things, too. Unfortunately, some things just can't be designed. There's a process fundamentally dissimilar to design--natural selection--that ultimately produced the human brain out of competing, uncoordinated forces following shallow goals. And when you put humans together in a social context, there are processes fundamentally dissimilar to design, made out of competing, uncoordinated forces, that ultimately produced liberal democracies. The biggest joke on the designer ever is that these undesigned processes eventually end up doing a better job than any designer would, as the blood-soaked social designers of the 20th century discovered.

Re: How automatic transmission almost made sperm whales extinct

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So who are the designers, and how are they going to do any of this in isolation? Previous attempts have resulted in bloodbaths because the only way anyone can design a society is with large amounts of force. And then the state of the society is better characterized by the bloodbath than by whatever design the bloodbath was intended to create or enforce. I don't buy the argument that this has to be done by force, or t…

Fundamentally, design is the wrong analogy. In design, there is a designer, and then there is something being designed. In society, the "designer" is already part of society, and he doesn't have the same degree of control an actual designer has. Let's suppose you assemble everyone together to agree on and implement a design. The design process literally turns into a political process: a competitive effort to benefit…

"The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus, I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure.

I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the Matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother."

-The Architect from "The Matrix Reloaded"

Post reply on HN